The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

EVALUATION OF BOND PERFORMANCE OF AN ULTRA-RAPID SETTING EMULSION FOR TACK COAT APPLICATIONS

A Thesis in Civil Engineering by Marcelo Silva Medeiros Junior

2009 Marcelo Silva Medeiros Junior

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science August 2009

ii

The thesis of Marcelo Silva Medeiros Junior was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Mansour Solaimanian Senior Researcher of Larson Transportation Institute Thesis Advisor

Shelley Marie Stoffels Associate Professor of Civil Engineering

Maria del Mar Lopez de Murphy Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

Peggy Ann Johnson Professor of Civil Engineering Head of the Department of Civil Engineering *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond performance of a new ultra-rapid setting emulsion (URS) relative to that of a cationic rapid setting emulsion (CRS-1h), through a host of laboratory tests. URS is a proprietary, ultra rapid-setting emulsion used as a bituminous tack coat for pavement applications. The product exhibits a very fast set time feature which distinguishes it from regular rapid setting emulsions. This is achieved by the introduction of certain additives, which speed up the water evaporation. The rapid set time is beneficial for fasttrack paving projects and hence could prove to be highly cost effective. However, the adoption of such a new product as an approved replacement to typical tack coats used by PennDOT is contingent on it exhibiting bond characteristics similar to those exhibited by other rapid setting emulsions. The results indicated that the URS delivered shear strength comparable with that from the CRS-1h. Considering the fact, that the tested CRS-1h has been commonly used in constructions tack coat applications, it appears that the URS could be reliably used in such applications with the gained benefit of faster setting.

iv

Table of Contents
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. viii Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Study Objective........................................................................................................................ 3 Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 4 Tack Coats: Composition and Construction .................................................................... 4 Evaluation of Tack Coat Adhesion .................................................................................. 7 Adhesion Testing Methods and Equipment ..................................................................... 8 URS17 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 18 Modified Marshall Test .................................................................................................... 18 SST (Simple Shear Test) .................................................................................................. 21 Sample Preparation .......................................................................................................... 25 Tack Coat ................................................................................................................. 26 Testing Plan...................................................................................................................... 30 Results and Analysis ................................................................................................................ 32 Modified Marshall Test .................................................................................................... 32 SST 34 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................... 36 Interpretation of Results ........................................................................................... 37 Comparison with Field Stress Levels ....................................................................... 38 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 42 References ................................................................................................................................ 44 Appendix A - Core Data...48 Appendix B - Testing Results ..49 Appendix C - Fixture Drawings ...50

List of Figures
Figure 1. Working scheme for the ASTRA test device (Santagata et al., 2005)...................... 8 Figure 2. Torque bond testing device and procedure (Tashman et al., 2006) ......................... 9 Figure 3. UTEP pull-off test device (Tashman, 2006) ............................................................. 11 Figure 4. UTEP pull-off test device being used (Tashman, 2006)........................................... 11 Figure 5. Schematic and actual view of the LCB shear test (Miro et al., 2006) ...................... 12 Figure 6. Schematic view of the LPDS (Layer-Parallel Direct Shear) test device with .......... 13 Figure 7. FDOT bond strength test device (Sholar et al., 2003) .............................................. 13 Figure 8. Designed shear mold with sample inside (a); SST environmental chamber with the shearing apparatus (b) (Louay, 2002) ........................................................................ 15 Figure 9. KSU bond strength test (Wheat, 2006) ..................................................................... 16 Figure 10. Jig developed for Modified Marshall Test: (a) rendering for manufacturing, (b) front view, (c) lateral view ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 11. Schematic view of the Modified Mashall jig.......................................................... 20 Figure 12. Specimen failure after Modified Marshall testing .................................................. 21 Figure 13. Finite element results: (a) shear stress state for the fixture condition and (b) shear stress state for glued platens ................................................................................... 22 Figure 14. Broken specimen after SST testing: (a) front view, (b) top view. .......................... 23 Figure 15. Schematic view of the SST Fixture ........................................................................ 23 Figure 16. SST testing apparatus: (a) load platens, (b) test set up inside the SST chamber, (c) rendering ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 17. Shear stress distribution for two different SST test conditions .............................. 25 Figure 18. Core specimen: (a) coated with tack-coat and (b) bottom layer (core) with new mix ................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 19. Residual asphalt after setting .................................................................................. 27 Figure 20. Graduated cylinder used for density measurement ................................................. 28 Figure 21. Specimens surface coated with emulsion .............................................................. 28 Figure 22. Specimens after the overlays compaction ............................................................. 29

vi Figure 23. SST specimens after coring and sawing ................................................................. 30 Figure 24 Comparison of shear strengths from Modified Marshall tests for CRS-1h and URS at 25 oC .................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 25. Modified Marshall for CRS-1h at 25 oC ................................................................. 33 Figure 26. Modified Marshall for URS at 25 oC ...................................................................... 33 Figure 27. Comparison of shear strengths for CRS-1h and URS at 25 oC ............................... 34 Figure 28. Comparison of shear strengths for CRS-1h and URS at 51oC ................................ 35 Figure 29. Model geometry: (a) cross section dimensions (b) top plan view .......................... 38 Figure 30. Selected finite element mesh .................................................................................. 39 Figure 31. Shear stress on the interface plane between the overlay and asphalt concrete layer.................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 32. Shear Stress along a line underneath the tire at the interface plane between overlay and asphalt concrete ............................................................................................ 41

vii

List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of agency prime coat specifications (after Cross and Shrestsha, 2004) ..... 6 Table 2 Typical application rates (WSDOT, 2002) ................................................................. 7 Table 3. Summary of the samples information ....................................................................... 26 Table 4 Experimental matrix ................................................................................................... 31 Table 5 Shear strength values from SST and Modified Marshall tests .................................... 36 Table 6. Statistical analysis results .......................................................................................... 37 Table 7. Material properties used for numerical analysis ........................................................ 39

viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ghassan Ryad Chehab, who guided me throughout this work as well as in many others during the two years I had the pleasure to be his student. With him Ive learned several lessons, many of them lessons for life. His support, guidance and friendship were essential to the conclusion of this work and his example as a man of science and faith will always inspire me in my years to come. I also like to thank the unconditional support that I got from Dr. Shelley Stoffels that never let me without technical answers and who was in many circumstances the shoulder I could rely on. Im sincerely thankful to everything she did in order to help me out during the final stages of this thesis. Im also greatly thankful to Dr. Mansour Solaimanian for having me as his student and for giving valuable contributions to my work. I also owe gratitude to Dr Maria Lopez for her help with fracture mechanics and for promptly accepting the invitation to make part of my committee.

Acknowledgements are also due to my friends at CATO, Xiaochao Tang, Laxmikanth Premkumar, Carlos Palacios, Dan Fura, Hoki Ban amongst others. And finally to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for sponsoring this work.

1 Chapter 1

Introduction

An asphalt tack coat is a film of bituminous emulsion that is used to enhance adhesive bonding between an existing layer and a new layer. Adhesion between pavement layers is a key factor affecting the proper stress distribution among the pavement layers. The use of tack coat ensures that the layers act as a monolithic system, preventing slippage on the interface between layers. Improper bonding between layers can cause a deficient transfer of radial tensile and shear stresses into the entire pavement structure. It can also cause a stress concentration at the bottom of the wearing course (Louay et al., 2002). The lack of tack coat can lead to de-bonding of the overlay, slippage between layers, and premature fatigue cracking (WSDOT, 2002). The only exception for the use of tack coat is when an overlay is placed after 1 or 2 days on a new asphalt layer that has not yet been opened for traffic. Mrawira and Damude (1999) compared the shear strength of an interface between overlays placed over fresh pavements (1 to 2 days old) with and without tack coat by applying a shear load of 1 mm/min (0.04 in/min). The authors have found that the tack coat doesnt improve shear strength. Normally, hot liquid asphalt, emulsified asphalt, or cutback asphalt are used for tack coat. The application process consists of spraying the material on the surface of an existing pavement prior to an overlay. Tack coats are also used where the asphalt mixture comes in contact with the vertical face of curbs, gutters, cold pavement joints, and structures. The object of study in this work is a proprietary ultra-rapid setting emulsion, (URS) used as a bituminous tack coat for pavement applications. The product exhibits a very fast set time feature that distinguishes it from regular rapid-setting emulsions. The faster setting (15 minutes) is achieved by the introduction of two additives, one prior and one after the application of the emulsion itself. The rapid set time is

2 beneficial for fast-track paving projects and hence could prove to be highly cost effective given the economy in time due to a faster setting process.

3 Chapter 2

Study Objective

The new ultra-rapid setting emulsion shows a very rapid setting time which is rather beneficial to a fast-track construction purposes. Nonetheless its performance in the field was not yet completely verified. The behavior of the new product had to be tested before its approval given that the addition of two chemicals to the base emulsion should be verified against any reduction on the bonding product after its setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond performance of URS relative to that of CRS-1h through a host of laboratory tests. The experimental plan was designed aiming to assess the bonding properties in terms of shear strength of the two products. Two different types of tests were chosen for this task. The influence of the loading rate, as well as the effects of the temperature on the shear strength of the two products was taken into consideration. The experiments served as a way of comparing the alleged performance of the new product in the field. The approval from PennDOT was conditioned to a statistically equivalent behavior of the new product when compared to the existing CRS-1h.

4 Chapter 3

Literature Review
Tack Coats: Composition and Construction

Emulsified asphalts are increasingly being used instead of cutback asphalts or hot asphalt cements because of their lower application temperature and environmental concerns related to the volatile components. According to the emulsifying agent and other manufacturing controls, the emulsified asphalt may be anionic or cationic. Anionic emulsions have positive-charge droplets, in contrast with the cationic emulsions. The aggregate surfaces electronic charge defines the type of emulsion. Aggregates with a negative surface charge require an anionic emulsion asphalt, while cationic emulsion asphalts are used with aggregates that have a positive surface charge. The reactivity between the emulsifying agent and the aggregates will define the break (or setting) time. Emulsions can be categorized as rapid-setting (RS), medium-setting (MS), or slow-setting (SS). The most common emulsified asphalts used as tack coat materials are SS-1, SS-1h, CRS2 (Cationic Rapid Setting), CMS-2, or CSS-1h (Asphalt Institute, 1989). Surface preparation is the first step in the proper application of tack coat. The pavement must be dry and cleaned of any dust in order to ensure the absorption of the emulsion into the existing surface. When the surface is not appropriately cleaned, the tack coat doesnt bond to the existing surface and can stick to the paving equipments tires, creating tracks of reduced coat thickness. The uniform application of tack coat and an appropriate application rate are the most influential factors in tack coating. The application spread rate can be checked in situ using procedures documented in ASTM D2995 standard.

5 A survey conducted in 13 Midwestern and Western States in the United States indicated that slow-setting emulsions are the primary materials used for tack coat (Table 1), with the exception of work performed in California by CALTRANS, where the AR-4000 was the most common tack coat material (Cross and Shrestha, 2004). The Kansas Department of Transportation was the only agency that reported occasionally using cutback asphalts as tack coat. New Mexico and Texas reported that PG binders (asphalt cement) were occasionally used as tack coat materials. It should be noted that there exists a trend of allowing a wider range of materials in tack coat applications. The amount of residual asphalt content is calculated by the residual tack coat rate, which is the amount of material remaining on the pavement surface after the total evaporation of the water. Several authors (Paul and Scherocman 1998; Louhay et. al., 2002, WSDOT 2002) recommend a range of 0.18 to 0.27 L/m2 (0.04 to 0.06 gal/yd2), depending on the existing surface condition; however, studies have found (Uzan et. al., 1978; Mrawira and Damude, 1999) that some materials can perform better at different application rates. Table 2 shows the values recommended by the Washington Department of Transportation for slow-setting asphalt emulsions (SS-1, SS-1h) containing approximately 60% bituminous material.

6
Table 1 Summary of agency prime coat specifications (after Cross and Shrestsha, 2004)

Table 2 Typical application rates (WSDOT, 2002)

Application Rate Existing Pavement Condition Undiluted (gal/yd ) New Asphalt Oxidized Asphalt Milled Surface (HMA) Milled Surface (PCC) PCC 0.05 - 0.07 0.07 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.13 0.10 - 0.13 0.07 - 0.10
2

Diluted (1:1 with Water) (gal/yd ) 0.10 - 0.13 0.13 - 0.20 0.20 - 0.27 0.20 - 0.27 0.13 - 0.20
2

Residual (gal/yd ) 0.03 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.08 0.06 - 0.08 0.04 - 0.06
2

Evaluation of Tack Coat Adhesion

Uzan et al. (1978) investigated the influence of application rate on the adhesion of tack coat at the interface between layers. The direct shear test is used to compare adhesion of the same material at different application rates. The optimum tack coat application for the material studied was found to be 1.0 Kg/m2 at 25 oC. Molenaar et al. (1986) concluded that shear resistance between HMA layers treated with stress-absorbing interlayers is about the same for specimens with and without tack coat. The tests are performed using a modified Marshall stability load press at a rate of 0.85 mm/sec. Performing shear tests in rectangular and cylindrical specimens, Hachiya and Sato (1997) investigated the influence of temperature, loading rate, and curing period in two different emulsion tack coats. The results showed little effect at 20 oC; however, the bond strength was greater at 40 oC. The results regarding the load application rate showed a significant impact on the bond strength. The specimens tested at the rate of 101.6 mm/min (4 in/min) showed higher bond strength than those tested at 1.01 mm/min (0.04 in/min. Louay et al. (2002) analyzed the

8 performance of six different materials, two asphalt cements (PG 64-22 and PG 76-22M) and four emulsions (CRS-2P, SS1, CSS-1 and SS-1h). Shear tests using SST (Simple Shear Tester) were conducted and the results showed the best performer to be the CRS-2P emulsion at the application rate of 0.09 L/m2 (0.02 gal/yd2).

Adhesion Testing Methods and Equipment Several test protocols and corresponding equipment are commonly used by highway agencies to evaluate bond strength however no standard exists until the completion of this work. Some of the most commonly found methods will be discussed as follows.

ASTRA
Figure 1 shows the ASTRA (Ancona Shear Testing Research and Analysis apparatus), designed at the Universit Politecnica delle Marche in Italy (Santagata et al., 1993). The system consists of a direct shear box, similar to the device usually used in soil mechanics. It allows for evaluation of the interlayer shear zone between two bituminous layers under laboratory conditions. The specimens, in contact, can be either prismatic with a maximum square crosssection area of 100 x 100 mm, or cylindrical with diameters ranging from 94 to 100 mm.

Figure 1. Working scheme for the ASTRA test device (Santagata et al., 2005)

TorqueBondTest
The Torque Bond Test, originally developed in Sweden, is a common test for assessing bond strength using an in-situ torque test procedure. In this test, the pavement is cored below the interface of interest and left in place. A plate is glued to the surface of the core, then a torque wrench is attached to the plate and a torque is applied manually until failure occurs (West, 2005). A similar test was developed to be conducted in the laboratory. The procedure is the same except that the core is removed and placed in a clamp device (Figure 2). The specimen is held at the bottom and the torque is manually applied to the metal plate glued at the top of the core by a torque wrench. The force required for failure is recorded as well as the location of the failure.

Figure 2. Torque bond testing device and procedure (Tashman et al., 2006)

The bond strength for the specimen is then calculated using Equation 1.

12 Mx10 6 D 3

(1)

10 where is the interlayer bond strength (kPa), M is the peak torque at failure (Nm), and D is the diameter of the core (mm). The laboratory Torque Bond Test is conducted at 202 C (684 F).

PullOffTest
For the pull-off test, a circular drill bit (100-mm diameter) is used to drill into the pavement from the top surface, passing through the interface and penetrating 50 mm into the base layer. Steel plates are glued to the top surface of the core and pull off of the ground. The system used to apply the tensile force also records the maximum load registered during the test (Tschegg et al., 1995). However, this procedure presents a wide scattering of results. Some of the possible reasons are: eccentricity of load, small core diameter and large aggregate size, notches at the surface of the cores due to drilling or burst out aggregates, stress concentrations, uncontrolled temperature, and indentation effects due to rough surfaces (Tschegg et al., 1995).

UPOD
The UTEP Pull-Off Device (UPOD) developed at the University of Texas at El Paso measures the tensile strength of the tack coat before a new overlay is paved (Deysarkar, 2004). The UPOD measures the strength of the tack coat in tension. The instrument weighs about 10.4 kg (23 lb) and it is leveled by adjusting the pivoting feet, as can be seen in Figure 3. A torque wrench, which is attached to the device, pulls the plate up from the tacked surface.

11

Figure 3. UTEP pull-off test device (Tashman, 2006)

After the tack coat is applied on the pavement, it is allowed to set for 30 minutes. Thereafter, the device is placed on the tack-coated surface. An 18 kg (40 lb) load is placed on the weight key (at the top of the device) for 10 minutes prior to testing in order to set the contact plate. The load is then removed and the torque wrench is rotated in the counterclockwise direction to detach the contact plate from the tack-coated pavement (Figure 4).

Figure 4. UTEP pull-off test device being used (Tashman, 2006)

The torque required to detach the contact plate from the tacked pavement is recorded in inch-pounds and is then converted to the strength using a calibration factor.

12

LCB
The LCB (Laboratorio de Caminos de Barcelona) shear test is intended to measure the resistance to tangential stresses caused by the application of a shear force (Figure 5). The stresses are produced in the bond between the two asphalt layers, whether or not a tack coat has been used. The displacement of one layer with respect to the other is also measured. The test can be used on laboratory-produced specimens or cores from pavements.

Figure 5. Schematic and actual view of the LCB shear test (Miro et al., 2006)

LPDS
The Layer-Parallel Direct Shear (LPDS) test device (Figure 6) is a modified version of equipment developed in Germany by Leutner (1979). The device fits into an ordinary servohydraulic Marshall testing machine and allows testing of cores with a diameter of about 150 mm (Raab and Partl, 2002). The load is applied near the interface of two bonded layers, one that is supported and another that is suspended. The shear test device holds the bottom part of the compacted cylinder and a shear load is applied perpendicularly to the axis of the cylinder of the top layer to measure the shear resistance at the interface. The load is applied at a rate of 50.8 mm/min at a temperature of 20 C.

13

Figure 6. Schematic view of the LPDS (Layer-Parallel Direct Shear) test device with pneumatic clamping (Raab and Partl, 2002)

FloridaDOTShearTestMethod
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) developed a similar, simple direct shear device that can be used in a universal testing machine or a Marshall press, as seen in Figure 7. The test is performed using 150-mm-diameter specimens.

Figure 7. FDOT bond strength test device (Sholar et al., 2003)

14 FDOT uses this method to evaluate pavement layer bonding on projects where there is concern about the integrity of the tack coat bonding due to rain during paving operations. Specimens should be 150 mm (6 inches) in diameter in order to reduce testing variability (larger shear surface area). The gap between the two rings is 4.76mm (3/16 inch). This is to account for the irregular surface of the cored specimens. The load is applied is strain-controlled mode at a rate of 50.8-mm/min (2-in/min), which is performed using the Marshall test apparatus or any universal testing machine. The specimens are conditioned at a temperature of 251 C for a minimum of 2 hours before the test. The core is then placed between the shear plates so that the direction of traffic marked on the core is parallel to the shear direction. The core is then loaded until failure occurs. The shear strength is then calculated using Equation 2 (Sholar et al., 2003):

SB =

4 PMAX D 2

(2)

where SB is the shear strength (psi), PMAX is the maximum load applied to the specimen (lbf), and D is the specimen diameter (in inches).

SST(SuperpaveShearTester)
Louay et al. (2002) developed a shearing apparatus designed to hold a cylindrical specimen and is mounted inside an SST machine. The apparatus produces a failure at the interface of the bottom and top layers of the specimen. In Figure 8, both the jig and the assembled test can be seen. The procedure adopted consisted of applying a simple shear test by shearing the specimens at the interface. Lateral confinement was attained by a circular jig (Figure 8-a) that ensured the failure at the interface. The bottom part of the specimen was compacted in a

15 Superpave gyratory compactor. After cooling, the tack coat was applied and the specimen was reintroduced into the compactor for compaction of the top layer.

The target air void content for each of the bottom and top specimens was 6%. The specimens were tested in an SST machine at temperatures of 25 C and 51 C. A loading rate of 50 lb/min was applied until the failure of the specimens. It was observed that the CRS-2P emulsion performed better than PG64-22, PG76-22M, SS-1, SS-1h, and CSS-1h. The optimum rate of application for each tack coat was determined based on the highest shear strength. The authors concluded that the maximum strength obtained was only 83% compared to the same mixture specimens without interface (monolithic structure), implying that interfaces potentially cause slip planes.

Figure 8. Designed shear mold with sample inside (a); SST environmental chamber with the shearing apparatus (b) (Louay, 2002)

16

BondStrengthTestDevelopedatKansasStateUniversity
A bond strength test procedure, as well as the necessary testing apparatus was developed by Wheat (2006) in order to investigate the influence of different shear stress planes on the bond strength of the tack coat interface. The author created two supports for the test (Figure 9), one holding the bottom part of the specimen and the other one responsible for holding the top layer of the specimen as well as changing the direction of the load force. The angle between the specimen axis and the actuator axis can be adjusted, which allows different planes of shear stresses acting on the specimen. The test is performed under a sinusoidal loading at six different frequencies (25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz). Deflection between the top and bottom layers is measured by two LVDTs mounted on the interface.

Figure 9. KSU bond strength test (Wheat, 2006)

17 URS

As described previously, URS is a proprietary, rapid-setting emulsion used as a bituminous tack coat for pavement applications and was developed to achieve a very fast set time that distinguishes it from regular rapid-setting emulsions. This is accomplished by the introduction of two different additives in a process referred to as Colnet. The two additives used in the process are the adhesion agent (MC) and the setting solution (XC).

A study conducted by Chehab et al. (2006) evaluated the long-term performance of field sections constructed using URS as tack coat. The scheme adopted by the researchers consisted of evaluating the rheological and physical properties of the residue of a CRS-1h emulsion and that of URS in order to ensure that the Colnet fast-breaking process of URS does not significantly alter the properties of the emulsion, causing it to fail the PennDOT specifications.

The URS exhibited an extremely rapid breaking process compared to a rapid-setting emulsion, diluted CRS-1h. The two additives (XC and MC) included in URS caused a slight overall decrease in residue density, stiffness, and viscosity and also allowed for faster breaking. A comprehensive PG-grade testing was conducted on both the base CRS-1h emulsion and the emulsion with the additives (URS) in the laboratory for both high-temperature properties and low-temperature properties. Properties for both emulsions were very similar and the PG grade of the emulsion and URS were the same. More information can be found in a detailed report by Chehab et al. (2006). The only property that was not tested in the aforementioned study was adhesion. The focus of the current study was to evaluate the adhesion properties of the URS as compared to those of the regular base emulsion CRS-1h.

18 Chapter 4

Methodology

The experimental scheme adopted in the course of this project consisted of evaluating the maximum shear strength of the two products: the control emulsion (CRS-1h) and URS (CRS-1h+ MC and XC). A host of three tests was chosen for this purpose: the Modified Marshall Test, performed at 25 C, and the Simple Shear Test, performed at 25 C and 55 C. The specimens consisted of two layers. The bottom layer was obtained from a field core, while the top layer consisted of fresh asphalt mixture compacted on top of the bottom layer in the Superpave Gyratory Compactor at the Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (LTI) at Penn State. Tack coat was applied at the interface of both. More details on the specimens used and the fabrication methodology are provided further in this study. Modified Marshall Test In this experimental method, the specimens were subjected to direct shear force applied at a constant rate of 50.8 mm/min (2 in/min) until the specimens failure. A customized jig, referred to as the modified Marshall jig, was fabricated for the testing in this project. The jig, shown in Figure 10 consisted of two hollow cylinders aligned horizontally. One of the cylinders was fixed at its bottom to a base plate, while the other could move vertically with minimal friction along four columns. During the test, a load was applied on a smooth horizontal strip located at the top of the movable cylinder.

19

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 10. Jig developed for Modified Marshall Test: (a) rendering for manufacturing, (b) front view, (c) lateral view

The vertical load applied perpendicularly to the specimens axis caused shear stresses at the interface between the two parts of the jig. For this particular test, the specimen was situated such that the shearing of the specimen occurred along the interface between the old asphalt and

20 new asphalt, thus evaluating the shear strength attributed to the tack coat. The loading stopped once splitting failure of the specimen occurred.

Figure 11. Schematic view of the Modified Mashall jig

The applied load and displacement of the moving jig were measured by a load cell and LVDT, respectively. Measurements were recorded by a data acquisition system for subsequent analysis. A tested specimen can be seen in Figure 12.

21

Figure 12. Specimen failure after Modified Marshall testing

SST (Simple Shear Test)

The SST test was performed to evaluate the strength of the specimens (core + tack coat + new mixture) when subjected to simple shear. The specimen was glued to the top and bottom to steel plates. One of the plates was fixed, while the other moved in a horizontal direction. The specimen remained at a constant height throughout the test. The failure plane, along which shear stress was maximum, lay along an approximately 45 plane. In our experiment, tests with this setup clearly exhibited failures at approximately 45 angle. As a result, modifications were made to the specimen assembly to ensure that maximum shear stresses were induced at the interface of the two layers where the tack coat was applied. Figure 13 shows the numerical simulation of the two distinct situations. The results were obtained from a Finite Element elastic analysis keeping the material properties constant for both cases. The areas on top of the two specimens represent the metal plates and fixtures. The arrows represent the prescribed displacements. The dashed lines indicate the plane in which the tack coat was present in the specimens.

22

(a)

(b)
Figure 13. Finite element results: (a) shear stress state for the fixture condition and (b) shear stress state for glued platens

23

(a a)

(b)

Figure 14. B Broken specim after SST t men testing: (a) fro view, (b) top view. ont

Nevert theless, since the objective of this proje was to com e ect mpare the adh hesion/bondin ng ffectiveness of both CRS-1 and URS, a modificatio to the testin apparatus n o 1h on ng needed to be made ef to ensure maxi o imum stresses were applied at the interf s d face. Therefor a testing a re, apparatus to sa atisfy th objective was built. Thi apparatus c his w is consisted of tw platens, ea with a 101.6-mm (4-in wo ach nch) in nner diameter and 22.9-mm (0.9-inch) c r m core depth. Th plates held the specimen one cappin the he d n, ng to part of the specimen wh the other capped the bo op hile ottom. The sp pecimens top and bottom p p part were w not glued but fit tightly into the pla as depicte in the Figu 15 . d ates ed ure

Figure 15. S Schematic view of the SST F w Fixture

24 Figure 16 shows th two platens with and wi e he s ithout the spec cimen. The SST test with modified plates is performe similarly to the original SST test with the standard sized-platen at m ed o h d ns, a constant disp placement of 5 50.8 mm/min (2 in/min) at 25 oC and 1mm/min at 51 oC, respecti n t ively.

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 16. SST testing apparatus: (a) load plate (b) test se up inside the SST chambe e : ens, et er, (c) renderin ng

Figure 17 shows co e omputed shea stresses alon the interfa plane for t cases (ori ar ng ace two iginal set-up and modified set-u The resul were obtai m up). lts ined from a Finite Element elastic analy t ysis

25 keeping the material properties constant for both cases. As can be seen the testing fixture induces a higher maximum level of shear stress at the same plane when compared to the glued specimen test. The peaks of stress at the boundaries of the specimen cause the shear failure to start from the ends towards the center, as was confirmed during the tests.(Figure 17).

SSTGlued SSTFixture ShearStress 0

20

40 60 Distance(mm)

80

100

Figure 17. Shear stress distribution for two different SST test conditions

Sample Preparation The specimens used for testing in the Modified Marshall and SST tests were 150 mm in diameter and 100 mm in length. Each specimen consisted of two layers with tack coat applied at the interface. The bottom layer was a 35- to 50-mm core taken from an existing pavement (referred to as field mix). The cores were equally divided between 9.5 and 12.5 mm surface course mixes. The second layer consisted of a 9.5-mm Superpave (laboratory) mix compacted on top of the bottom layer in a Superpave Gyratory compactor (Figure 18).

26

(a)

(b)

Figure 18. Core specimen: (a) coated with tack-coat and (b) bottom layer (core) with new mix

The cores were divided into 10 sets with 5 replicates each. Each set of cores was taken from one section of a specific roadway either under construction or undergoing rehabilitation. Table 3 provides a summary of core and mix data for each set of specimens. The recorded height is the average for the five specimens in each set.
Table 3. Summary of the samples information Sample Set 510 509 514 508 511 558 499 529 543 506 Route 188 119 70 22 724 81 81 74 34 34 NMAS (mm) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Binder Content (%) 5.6 5.4 5.8 5.4 5.6 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.5 Average Height (mm) 32.3 39.5 38.02 42.58 45.16 35.36 33.67 35.2 35.73 49.23

Tack Coat The tack coat used in the study was a CRS-1h -based emulsion. For the URS, the XC and MC additives were applied separately from the CRS-1h emulsion. In order to determine the

27 proper rate of tack coat the application on the specimens, the density and residue content of the CRS-1h were determined using two procedures as discussed in the following section.

AsphaltResidue
The emulsion, pre-heated to 60 oC, was poured into a glass lens and weighed. After the emulsion had set, only the residual asphalt was left on the lens (Figure 19). The weight was measured again and the percentage of residual asphalt was calculated. The emulsion yielded 39.3% asphalt residue, which subsequently was assumed to be 40% throughout this work.

Figure 19. Residual asphalt after setting

EmulsionApplication

The specific gravity at 60 oC was measured using a graduated cylinder, as shown in Figure 20, and was found to be 998 g/L. With the values of density, residual asphalt and the area of the specimens surface, the amount of emulsion applied on each specimen was calculated to be 8.2 g. It was critical to apply consistent amounts of tack coat across specimens. Extra care was taken in applying the emulsion onto the specimen using a previously saturated brush, after which

28 the specimen was placed on a scale. Figure 21 shows the specimens after application of the emulsion.

Figure 20. Graduated cylinder used for density measurement

Figure 21. Specimens surface coated with emulsion

The application of the URS required the application of three liquids. First, 0.365 g of adhesive agent MC was applied followed by application of the CRS-1h emulsion. Finally, 0.261g of breaking agent XC was applied. The agents were sprayed onto the specimen surface rather than brushed to avoid mixing the components on the brush. The time of curing recommended by the

29 manufacturer ranges from 5 to 15 minutes depending on the wind and incidence of sun when the application of the product in the field. In this work a period of 20 minutes was used given that inside the lab there was no direct sun incidence or wind blowing. After the tack coat on the surface of the specimen broke, the specimen was fitted inside a 150-mm mold of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor and asphalt mixture was then placed on top. The asphalt mixture was compacted such that the total height of the specimen was 100 mm and air void content in the top layer was 4+/- 0.5%. Specimens after compaction are shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Specimens after the overlays compaction

Specimens to be tested for the SST were cored from the compacted specimens to a final diameter of 100 mm and sawed to a final height of 50.8 mm (2 inches). This extra fabrication step was needed to ensure that the specimen fit tightly inside the modified plates developed for this test, as discussed earlier. Two such specimens are shown in Figure 23; the bottom and top layers of the specimen can be easily identified.

30

Figure 23. SST specimens after coring and sawing

Testing Plan

Table 4 shows the testing plan adopted in this study. Each specimen was identified by its sample (replicate) set and its individual number label on its top surface. For instance, 511-3 designates the third sample in set 511. The set number corresponds to the designation established by PennDOT to identify the road section from which the core was extracted. The same round of tests, Modified Marshall and SST at 25 C and 51C, were conducted for both the 9.5-mm and 12.5-mm core mixes and for both CRS-1h and URS tack coats. The samples chosen to be tested according to the cells in the experimental plan, shown in Table 4, were chosen such that the effects of tack coat type, NMAS mix, testing temperature, and test type could be statistically determined with minimum influence attributed to specimen-to-specimen variation. For further illustration, the following samples are presented. Samples 509-1 and 509-3 (both from set 509) were used in SST testing at 25 C, where the only difference was that the former had CRS-1h as tack coat whereas the latter sample had URS. This made it possible to determine the effect of tack coat when comparing the results. Similarly, samples 499-3 and 499-4

31 were used for tests that enabled determination of the effect of tack coat using the Modified Marshall testing of 12.5-mm surface mixes.
Table 4 Experimental matrix

CRS-1h Test Method

o

URS 12.5 mm 9.5 mm

o

9.5 mm 25 C 51 C 509-2 514-1

o o

12.5 mm
o

25 C 543-2 558-4 499-3 506-1

51 C 506-2 543-4 499-2 558-3

25 C 509-3 514-5 511-4 508-4

51 C 509-4 514-4

25 C 543-3 558-1 499-4 506-4

51oC 499-5 506-6 543-5 558-2

SST Modified Marshall

509-1 514-3 511-1 508-1

32 Chapter 5

Results and Analysis

This section discusses the results obtained from the Modified Marshall testing and those from SST on specimens with CRS-1h and URS. The results are presented graphically followed by a statistical analysis to determine whether URS contributes to adhesive strength between the layers. Complete results for the testing performed in this study can be found in Appendix A. Modified Marshall Test

The Modified Marshall test was conducted on four specimens for each type of tack coat at a temperature of 25 oC. As seen in Figure 24, specimens from sets 506 and 508 exhibited slightly higher shear strength than URS. The shear strength of specimens for sets 499 and 511 for CRS-1h are similar to those of URS.
1000 900 ShearStrength(KPa) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 499 506 509 514 CRS1h URS

SpecimenID

Figure 24 Comparison of shear strengths from Modified Marshall tests for CRS-1h and URS at 25 oC

33 Figure 25 and Figure 26 show the stress-strain curves from Modified Marshall loading of CRS-1h and URS specimens at 25 oC, respectively. The behavior is similar for both specimen types, except for higher variability for those with URS. Additionally, similar values of strain are recorded at peak stresses.
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 ShearStrain Figure 25. Modified Marshall for CRS-1h at 25 oC

ShearStress(kPa)

4993 5061 5081 5111

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 ShearStrain Figure 26. Modified Marshall for URS at 25 oC

ShearStress(kPa)

4994 5064 5084 5114

34 SST

The SST test was conducted at 25 oC and 51 oC. At 25 oC, the test was performed at the same loading speed, 50.8 mm/min (2 in/min), as was done with the Modified Marshall test for the purpose of comparison between the two testing procedures. At 51 oC, the test was conducted at a displacement rate of 0.017 mm/sec to examine the effect of loading speed on the shear strength for both specimen types. Figure 27 shows the shear strength for specimens with CRS-1h and URS at 25 oC. Specimens from sets 509 and 543 exhibited slightly higher shear strength for URS than for CRS1h , whereas the other two sets of specimens, 514 and 558, exhibited slightly higher shear strength for CRS-1h than for URS. The shear strengths obtained from the Modified Marshall test were slightly higher than those from the SST.

900 800 ShearStrength(KPa) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 509 514 543 558 CRS1h URS

SpecimenID Figure 27. Comparison of shear strengths for CRS-1h and URS at 25 oC

35 The shear strength of specimens with CRS-1h and URS tested at 51 C are compared in Figure 28. As expected, due to the temperature and loading speed, the overall shear strengths of tested specimens were significantly lower than those at 25 oC. Unlike at 25 C, almost all sets of specimens yielded higher shear strengths in the case of URS than CRS-1h.

Analyzing the results graphically, it can be concluded that overall, specimens with CRS1h and URS exhibited similar shear strength at the interface between the bottom and top layer. CRS-1h exhibited slightly higher values at the moderate temperature tested (25 C), while URS exhibited slightly higher values at elevated temperatures (51 C).

50 45 40 ShearStrength(KPa) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 499 506 509 514 543 558 CRS1h URS

SpecimenID Figure 28. Comparison of shear strengths for CRS-1h and URS at 51oC

36 Statistical Analysis A small difference in shear strength was observed between specimens with CRS-1h and those with URS, particularly when compared to the variability in strength from one set of specimens to the other. It was thus helpful to conduct a statistical analysis to confirm that the two types of tack coat exhibited similar values for adhesion. The analysis was conducted on data from the Modified Marshall test at 25 C and the SST test at 51 C (Table 5).

Table 5 Shear strength values from SST and Modified Marshall tests

Test Results at 25 C (kPa) CRS-1h URS 881.54 877.84 782.83 656.88 888.10 803.49 765.59 750.81 831.87 854.91 582.31 469.33 481.13 539.02 667.74 512.04

Test Results at 51 C (Kpa) CRS-1h URS 23.87 40.48 21.83 27.45 44.31 27.94 32.75 38.04 40.98 41.54 24.52 25.74 -

First, an Anderson-Darling test was conducted on the data to determine whether the data were normally distributed. From the analysis, it was concluded that the results of the tests did follow a normal distribution, and hence t-test statistics could be computed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the means of the two types of samples (URS versus CRS-1h). A large t-statistic would indicate that there was a significant difference between the means of the two types, and that the URS significantly altered the mean shear strength of the asphalt concrete.

37 The two-sample t-test was conducted for two cases: Case I: The test used the estimated standard deviations of the two samples. Case II: The test used a pooled standard deviation of the samples. Interpretation of Results

The t-statistic was used to construct the confidence interval within which the difference of means lies for a given confidence level (Table 6). Assuming a 95% confidence interval, the critical t-values for test results at 25 C and 51 C are t0 (25) = 2.160 and t0 (51) = 2.262, respectively. Since | t |calculated < t0, the calculated value of t is consistent with equality of the means.

Additionally, the confidence intervals constructed for a 95% level include zero, which indicates that the hypothesis that the means are equal cannot be neglected. This conclusion can also be drawn from the p-value, which is greater than 0.05, thereby concluding that the two means were not significantly different.

Table 6. Statistical analysis results

AD Test P-value Two Sample t-test Difference Estimate 95% CI -Difference T value P value

Test Results at 25 C URS CRS-1h 0.472 0.410 Case I Case II 52.1 52.1 (-114.4,218.6) (-113.2,217.4) 0.68 0.68 0.511 0.510

Test Results at 51 C URS CRS-1h 0.260 0.104 Case I Case II -2.16 -2.16 (-13.06,8.91) (-13.22,8.91) -0.44 -0.44 0.668 0.669

38 Comparison with Field Stress Levels Aiming a brief comparison between the stress levels developed in the field due to braking action. a finite element model of a typical pavement structure was developed using ABAQUS. The model geometry is presented in the Figure 29 and consists of a single tire on the rightmost side of the lane loaded with 551.5 KPa (80 psi) of vertical load. The structure consists of a 50.8 mm (2 in) overlay on top of a 127 mm (5 in) thick asphalt layer followed by a 300.8 mm (12 in) base layer sitting on a 2199.2 mm (86 in) subgrade.

(a)

(b)

Figure 29. Model geometry: (a) cross section dimensions (b) top plan view

The analysis considered all materials to have a linear elastic behavior. The material properties chosen for this simulation are shown in the Table 7 and correspond to typical values found for asphalt pavement structures. The properties were chosen to reflect the stiffness of the materials at a temperature of 25 oC.

39
Tab 7. Materia properties u ble al used for numer rical analysis

Layer r Thicknes ss Overlay O Asphalt Concr A rete Base B Su ubgrade 50.8 mm m 127 mm m 300.8 mm m 2199.2 mm m

Properties s E (KPa) 4,100,000 0 6,150,000 0 206,000 50,580 Poissons Rat P tio 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.40

The T mesh can be seen in the Figure 30. T conventio boundary conditions w adopted in e The onal y were th work and consisted of r his c roller support on all four ve ertical sides a fixed supp at the bo and port ottom of the subgrade A load of 5 f e. 551.5 KPa (80 psi) was app 0 plied on top o the tire foot of tprint. A Cou ulomb fr riction model was chosen i order to im in mitate the force transferred to the pavem when a es d ment ve ehicle brakes. A coefficien friction of 0 was attrib nt 0.3 buted as the co ontact propert for that reg ty gion.

Figure 3 Selected fin element m 30. nite mesh

In the Figure 31 the shear stress on the interfa plane betw e ace ween the over and the rlay ex xixting aspha concrete layer can be seen. alt

40

Figure 31. Shear stress o the interfac plane betwe the overla and asphalt concrete laye on ce een ay t er

The T Shear stress results alon a line that passes under ng rneath the tire at the interfa level and e ace fo ollowing the traffic directio can be see at the Figur 32. In this p t on en re picture to pea values can be ak se The posit one (0.12 MPa) corre een. tive 28 esponds to th stress in fro of the tire, where the he ont , pa avement is be eing pushed. T negative value (-0.04 MPa) corresp The ponds to the r region behind the d tir where the material is be re m eing pulled. T These results i indicate that t magnitude of the devel the e loped sh stresses at the interfac is significa hear a ce antly lower tha shear stren an ngth measured in the lab. d

41
0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 ShearStress(Mpa) 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Distance(mm) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Figure 32. Shear Stress along a line underneath the tire at the interface plane between overlay and asphalt concrete

42 Chapter 6

Conclusions

A study was conducted to evaluate the relative adhesion of a proprietary emulsion known as URS to that of regular CRS-1h emulsion. URS is considered an ultra-rapid-setting emulsion that is to be used as tack coat for fast-track paving operations. Three tests were conducted to evaluate the bond performance of URS: Modified Marshal test at 25 C and SST tests at 25 C and 51 C. The samples used consisted of a field core to form the bottom layer, and a fresh asphalt mixture compacted on top of it, using the Superpave gyratory compactor, to constitute the upper layer. Half of the specimens fabricated had regular CRS-1h tack coat applied at the interface, while the other half had URS. One of the deficiencies found during the course of this work was the incapability of performing the Modified Marshall test under controlled temperature conditions. The absence of a temperature chamber on the Marshall press prevented the test from being performed at a temperature other than the room temperature, which may have varied during the tests, given that the tests were done on two different days. In general, the results from the Modified Marshall and SST tests at 25 C both revealed similar shear strength values for both types of specimens, and so did the SST tests at 51 C. The strengths of the specimens with CRS-1h were slightly higher than those with URS in the Modified Marshall test, while the opposite was true for the SST test at 51 C. Statistical analyses performed on the test results confirmed that the observed differences in the strengths between the two types of specimens were statistically insignificant, and for a 95% confidence interval the means of the strengths were the same. Except for one specimen tested at 51 oC in SST (i.e. 509), the results indicated that the URS delivered shear strength comparable with that from the CRS-

43 1h. Considering that the tested CRS-1h has been used commonly used in construction tack coat applications, it appears that the URS could be reliably used in such applications with the gained benefit of faster setting. The results showed a great influence of the temperature on the ability of the tack coat in resisting shear stresses. That behavior was somewhat expected due to the viscoelastic nature of the asphalt binder residue. As known the asphalt changes its properties according to the temperature and loading rate. Two testing fixtures were built in order to perform the tests in this work. This was due to an absence of a specific standard or a consensus among the research community on how the bonding tests must be conducted. The two apparatus served well the purpose of the experiments, being reliable and easy to operate. The great benefit from the URS was found to be its very fast setting time, as was pointed out by the manufacturer. The gain in time due to a faster evaporation is highly desirable in fasttrack pavements. With all aforementioned analysis, it can be concluded that the adhesion properties of the URS emulsion and CRS-1h are the same with no difference being noticed in the overall behavior of the asphalt residue in terms of its resistance to shear forces.

44

References

Asphalt Institute (1989). The Asphalt Handbook, MS-4, 1989 Edition.

Cross, S.A., and Shrestha, P.P. (2004). Guidelines for Using Prime and Tack Coats. Final Report No. FHWA-CFL-04-001, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration, Lackwood, CO.

Deysarkar, I. (2004). Test Set-Up to Determine Quality of Tack Coat. Masters Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso.

Hachiya, Y., and Sato, K. (1997). Effect of Tack Coat on Bonding Characteristics at Interface between Asphalt Concrete Layers, Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, vol. 1, pp. 349-362.

Leutner, R. (1979). Untersuchungen des Schichtenverbunds beim bituminsen Oberbau Bitumen, Nr.3, 84-91 (in German).

Louay, M.N., Abdur Raqib, M., and Huang, B. (2002). Influence of Asphalt Tack Coat Materials on Interface Shear Strength, Transportation Research Record 1789, Transportation Research Board.

Miro, R. R., Perez-Jimenez, F., Borras, G., and Juan, M. (2003). Evaluation of the effect of tack coats. LCB shear test, 6th RILEM Symposium PTEBM03, Zurich, p. 550-556.

45 Molenaar, A.A.A., Heerkens, J.C.P., and Verhoeven, J.H.M. (1986). Effects of Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayers, Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 55, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists.

Mrawira, D., and Damude, D.J. (1999). Revisiting the Effectiveness of Tack Coats in Hot Mix Overlays: The Shear Strength of Tack Coats in Young Overlays, Proc., 44th Annual Conference of Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Quebec City, Canada, pp. 115-129.

Partl, M.N., and Raab, C. (1999). Shear Adhesion Between Top Layers of Fresh Asphalt Pavements in Switzerland, Proc., 7th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Victory Falls, Zimbabwe, pp. 5.130-5.137.

Paul, H. R., and J. A. Scherocman (1998). Friction Testing of Tack Coat Surfaces. In Transportation Research Record 1616, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 612.

Flexible Pavements of Ohio (2001). Proper Tack Coat Application, Technical Bulletin, Columbus, OH, May 21.

Raab, C., and Partl, M.N. (2004). Interlayer Shear Performance: Experience with Different Pavement Structures. Proc., 3rd Eurobitume Eurasphalt Congress, Vienna, Austria, pp. 535545.

46 Roffe, J.C., and Chaignon, F. (2002). Characterisation Tests on Bond Coats: Worldwide Study, Impact, Tests, and Recommendations, 3rd International Conference Bituminous Mixtures and Pavements, Thessaloniki.

Santagata, E., and Canestari, F. (1994). Tensile and Shear Tests of Interfaces in Asphalt Mixtures: a New Perspective on Their Failure Criteria, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Highway Surfacing, Ulster, Ireland.

Santagata, E., and Canestari, F. (2005). Temperature Effects on the Shear Behavior of Tack Coat Emulsions Used in Flexible Pavements, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 1, pages 39 - 46 Sholar, G.A., Page, G.C., Musselman, J.A., Upshaw, P.B., and Moseley, H.L. (2004). Preliminary Investigation of a Test Method to Evaluate Bond Strength of Bituminous Tack Coats, Proc., Annual Meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, [vol., pages].

Tashman, L., Nam, K., and Papagiannakis, T. (2006). Evaluation of the Influence of Tack Coat Construction Factors on the Bond Strength Between Pavement Layers. WCAT Report 06002, Washington Center for Asphalt Technology, [city, state].

Tschegg, E., Kroer, G., Tan, D., Stanzl-Tschegg, S., and Litzka, J. (1995). Investigation of Bonding between Asphalt Layers on Road Construction, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, pp. 309-316.

47 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000). Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Handbook, AC 150/5370- 14A, Appendix 1, [city, state].

Uzan, J., Livneh, M., and Eshed, Y. (1978). Investigation of adhesion properties between asphaltic-concrete layers, Proc., Annual Meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 47, pp. 495-521.

West, R.C., Moore, J.R., and Zhang, J. (2006). Evaluating Tack Coat Applications and the Bond Strength between Pavement Layers, Airfield and Highway Pavements Specialty Conference ASCE, 191, pp 578-588.

Wheat, M. (2006), Evaluation of Bond Strength at Asphalt Interfaces, Masters Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.

48

Appendix A - Core Data

Sample Set 510 509 514 508 511 558 499 529 543 506 Route 188 119 70 22 724 81 81 74 34 34 NMAS (mm) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Binder Content (%) 5.6 5.4 5.8 5.4 5.6 5 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.5 3/4" 100 100 1/2" 100 100 100 3/8" 100 94 95 #4 65 59 60 #8 39 37 35 #16 29 26 23 #30 22 20 18 #50 13 15 12 #100 9 10 8 #200 6.1 5.8 3.9 Average Height (mm) 32.3 39.5 38.02 42.58 45.16 35.36 33.67 35.2 35.73 49.23

100 100 97

90 88

78 52

44 34

30 21

21 14

15 9

11 7

8 4.1

49

Appendix B - Testing Results Specimen ID 499-3 506-1 508-1 511-1 499-4 506-4 508-4 511-4 509-1 514-3 543-2 558-4 509-3 514-5 543-3 558-1 499-3 506-1 509-2 514-1 543-4 558-3 499-4 506-6 509-4 514-4 543-5 558-2 Route 81 34 22 724 81 34 22 724 119 70 34 81 119 70 34 81 81 34 119 70 34 81 81 34 119 70 34 81 NMAS 12.5 12.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 9.5 9.5 12.5 12.5 Type of Test Modified Marshall Modified Marshall Modified Marshall Modified Marshall Modified Marshall Modified Marshall Modified Marshall Modified Marshall SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST SST Temperature 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 25oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC 51oC Tack Coat AET AET AET AET Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack AET AET AET AET Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack AET AET AET AET AET AET Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack Fasttack Max. Load (N) 15578.17 13833.68 15694.08 13529.17 15512.76 11608.06 14198.95 13267.99 6533.46 4573.42 3778.81 5244.43 6714.45 3686.11 4233.51 4021.61 187.44 171.46 348.04 257.19 321.82 192.56 317.98 215.60 219.44 298.77 326.28 202.18 Max. Shear Strength (Kpa) 881.54 782.83 888.10 765.59 877.84 656.88 803.50 750.81 831.87 582.31 481.13 667.7 854.91 469.33 539.03 512.05 23.87 21.83 44.31 32.75 40.98 24.52 40.49 27.45 27.94 38.04 41.54 25.74

50

AppendixCFixturesDrawings